JUDGMENT : N.B. Suryawanshi, J. 1. Heard. 2. By this appeal the appellant/original accused challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 1 August 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1996 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. One Thousand with default clause and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. Five Hundred with default clause. The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows: 3. On 09/09/1995 Complainant Rajkumar Tiwari (P.W. No. 8) orally reported to Hiwarkhed Police Station that on that day at about 4.00 p.m. he and his driver Sudhakar were returning from Ganeshpur in his Matador bearing No. MH-28/5189. When they reached near bridge situated at milestone No. 9, he saw Truck No. MH-12/7341 parked on the road side and by the side of that truck in korati bushes smoke was coming out. Out of curiosity the complainant and his driver stopped their vehicle. Suddenly one person entered in the truck. On reaching near the flames the complainant and his driver saw a body was burnt on tyre. P.W. No. 8 and his driver immediately rushed to the Police Station and gave oral report. Thereafter they went to chase the truck. They caught the truck along with cleaner-Balu Kale and on inquiry, Balu Kale disclosed that he committed murder of the driver by inflicting wheel spanner blow and he kept the dead body on tyre, poured diesel on it and ignited it. P.W. No. 8 then gave message with Shri Baburao Lokhandkar, Police Patil of village Shirala to inform the Police Station Officer, Hiwarkhed that they have caught the accused. On receiving information, Police Sub-Inspector Charkhe (P.W. No. 12) and other staff came there. They accosted the accused and brought him to the Police Station along with truck. Thereafter the complainant lodged report (Exh. 41). On the basis of the First Information Report (Exh. 41) Cri. No. 62 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with Hiwarkhed Police Station and the investigation commenced. They accosted the accused and brought him to the Police Station along with truck. Thereafter the complainant lodged report (Exh. 41). On the basis of the First Information Report (Exh. 41) Cri. No. 62 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with Hiwarkhed Police Station and the investigation commenced. After completing necessary investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Session. 4. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. In support of its case the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. The accused examined himself as defence witness No. 1. 5. It is the defence of the appellant/accused that on 09/09/1995 at 02:30 - 03:00 p.m. deceased driver-Sudam and the accused took meal at Khamgaon By-pass. At that time driver deceased Sudam had consumed liquor. While proceeding to Undri, the driver took three Mohammedan passengers, two gents and one lady in the truck. While the truck was proceeding, the deceased Sudam tried to outrage modesty of that lady, which annoyed two male members accompanying the said female. They dragged the driver in the forest area and killed him. 6. After recording the evidence the learned trial Court convicted the appellant hence the present appeal. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. The only circumstance proved on record is 'last seen' together, motive is not proved. P.W. Nos. 9 and 11 who were examined to prove the motive have not identified the appellant. No blood was detected on the spanner, which is a murder weapon. The wife of the deceased categorically admitted that when the relations between her husband Sudam and accused were good, hence the appellant had no reason and/or occasion to kill the deceased. By placing reliance in the ratio in Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 2017 SC 2617 , he argued that suspicion cannot take shape of the legal proof and circumstance of last seen together cannot be by itself form a basis for holding the accused guilty of the offence. By placing reliance in the ratio in Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 2017 SC 2617 , he argued that suspicion cannot take shape of the legal proof and circumstance of last seen together cannot be by itself form a basis for holding the accused guilty of the offence. By relying upon the ratio in Nizam and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016)1 SCC 550 : ( AIR 2015 SC 3430 ), he would urge that whether the time gap between the 'last seen' and recovery of the body is long and the possibility of others intervening cannot be ruled out. It would be unsafe to base the conviction on 'last seen theory'. It is safer to look for corroboration from the other circumstances. On the point of motive he relies on the ratio in Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2011 SC 72 : (2011 Cri LI 675 (SC)); Rishi Pal v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2014)4 SCC (Cri) 414 : AIR 2013 SC 3641 ) and in Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2013 SC 912 : (2013 Cri LJ 56 (SC)). Reliance is placed on Juwarsingh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 373 to contend that Court is not bound to accept the testimony of the witness who is not cross-examined. The learned Advocate for the appellant lastly relied on the ratio in Pralhad Narayan Nafade and another v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1978) Cri LJ 830 wherein it is held that when there are two parallel stories put-forth, the one in favour of the defence will have to be preferred. 8. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. strenuously supports the judgment and order of conviction to contend that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant by properly appreciating the evidence and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly points out that it was only the appellant who has committed offence and nobody else. It is therefore, his submission that the appeal is devoid of merit and the same be dismissed. 9. Admittedly this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence available. To prove the motive the prosecution has examined P.W. No. 9 Subhash Bhagat, a Cook at Dilbagh Dhaba. It is therefore, his submission that the appeal is devoid of merit and the same be dismissed. 9. Admittedly this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence available. To prove the motive the prosecution has examined P.W. No. 9 Subhash Bhagat, a Cook at Dilbagh Dhaba. In his evidence he stated that on 09/09/1995 he was on duty. At about 2.30 p.m. the driver and cleaner of Truck No. MH-12 7341 got down at the Dhaba. The cleaner told him to give meal quickly as he was hungry since Nagpur and the driver scolded at the conductor. P.W. No. 9, therefore, first gave meal to the cleaner and thereafter to driver, as they were regular customers. After the cleaner and the driver had meal and after half an hour they left the Dhaba. He also deposed that there was some hot exchange of words between the driver and the cleaner. The truck proceeded towards Chikhali. Thereafter in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. the said truck again returned at same Dhaba. Because of lapse of 7 to 8 years from the date of incident, he could not identify the accused/appellant. 10. P.W. No. 11 Kisanrao Ingle is Security Guard in Rajaram Steel Company which manufactures iron angles and supplies the same all over India. He has maintained the register of persons entering and exiting the company. They used to mention the truck numbers in the registers on its entry. According to him, on 08/09/1995 when he was on duty there was a quarrel between the conductor and the driver on account of sapling of plants and the driver scolded the conductor. On hearing noise he rushed towards the spot where the conductor and the driver were quarreling. He tried to pacify them. Thereafter the conductor left the spot. He remembered truck number as MH-12/7341, since it was Poona passing. He also did not recognize the appellant because of lapse of time. 11. The Complainant-P.W. No. 8 Rajkumar Tiwari has deposed that on 09/09/1995 he was returning from Ganeshpur to Khamgaon in the matador along with driver Sudhakar and on the way he saw smoke like burning tyre near Naidevi Fata. He stopped the vehicle and saw a person burning on the tyre. 11. The Complainant-P.W. No. 8 Rajkumar Tiwari has deposed that on 09/09/1995 he was returning from Ganeshpur to Khamgaon in the matador along with driver Sudhakar and on the way he saw smoke like burning tyre near Naidevi Fata. He stopped the vehicle and saw a person burning on the tyre. While returning from that spot he noticed one truck was standing far away from the spot went ahead and turned towards Khamgaon, which was having registration No. MH-12/7341. They went to the Police Station and lodged report and thereafter chased the truck up to Khamgaon. They spotted the truck standing near Preet Dhaba on the by-pass road Khamgaon. Thereafter he and his driver went to the city and called Mahendra Pathak, Anil Pathak, Deshmukh and others for catching the person who committed murder of the person whose body was burning. Thereafter they went to by-pass and stood near the truck till the police of Hiwarkhed Police Station reached there. One person came near the truck. They asked that person whose truck was that, where the truck was going and where the driver was? He told that the driver went for taking dinner. Thereafter police of Hiwarkhed Police Station reached that Hotel (Dhaba). Thereafter the police arrested that person in his presence. Thereafter he went to Police Station to lodge report (Exh. 40). The First Information Report recorded on the basis of the said report is at Exh. 41. 12. P.W. No. 2 Anil Pathak was working as driver on the matador bearing registration No. MTV-5162. On 09/09/1995 he and other 4-5 persons including Ramdas Pawar, Rangrao Deshmukh and Mahendra Pathak were standing near Shivaji Maharaj statute at Khamgaon in the evening time. At that time, P.W. No. 8 along with his driver Sudhakar came in the matador MH-28/5189 and told them that one corpse was burning near Naidevi Fata and they have suspicion about truck No. MH-12 7341. They told that they had suspicion on the conductor of that truck and the truck was standing near Preet Dhaba on Khamgaon by-pass. P.W. No. 2 Anil and others accompanied P.W. No. 8 in the matador of P.W. No. 8. They saw the truck standing there. There was no-one in the truck. They waited there for 10-15 minutes. Thereafter the conductor of the truck came there. He was asked about the documents of the truck and other persons. P.W. No. 2 Anil and others accompanied P.W. No. 8 in the matador of P.W. No. 8. They saw the truck standing there. There was no-one in the truck. They waited there for 10-15 minutes. Thereafter the conductor of the truck came there. He was asked about the documents of the truck and other persons. The conductor told them that the driver went for taking dinner. P.W. No. 2 identified the appellant as Conductor of the said truck. As the conductor was giving evasive replies, they thought that the conductor must have killed that person. At that time Baburao Lokhande (P.W. No. 7) who was going to his house at Lokhanda village was asked to lodge report at Police Station, Hiwarkhed and was also asked to told the Police that P.W. No. 2 and other persons have caught hold the accused. Thereafter the police came there and arrested the accused. At that time the appellant told his name as Balu Baburao Kale. 13. P.W. No. 6-Ramdas Pawar was standing along with P.W. No. 2 Anil Pathak, Ramrao Deshmukh near Shivaji Maharaj statute at Khamgaon in the evening of 09/09/1995. He also accompanied P.W. No. 8 complainant in his matador to the spot. He deposed that on reaching Preet Dhaba a truck bearing No. MH-12/7341 was standing there, nobody was inside the truck. They waited for sometime, then one person came there and went into the truck. When asked by them where the driver was, he told that he did not know. He also informed that the truck was in break-down condition. P.W. No. 8-Rajkumar and his driver Sudhakar identified that person as Cleaner of the truck who turned the truck back at the spot and brought the truck at Preet Dhaba. P.W. No. 6 identified the appellant and the accused person. Thereafter a message was sent to Police. Thereafter the police arrived and the accused was arrested. 14. P.W. No. 5 Arjun Shelke was working as driver with Multane Transport, Pune and is maternal uncle of deceased Sudam. The deceased was also working as driver with said Multane Transport. He knows the accused as the accused was working as cleaner with deceased Sudam on Truck No. MH-12/7341. He plies truck from Pune to Nagpur via Khamgaon. On 09/09/1995 while returning from Nagpur he saw gathering of persons on highway near Dhaba. The deceased was also working as driver with said Multane Transport. He knows the accused as the accused was working as cleaner with deceased Sudam on Truck No. MH-12/7341. He plies truck from Pune to Nagpur via Khamgaon. On 09/09/1995 while returning from Nagpur he saw gathering of persons on highway near Dhaba. He also saw the truck of Sudam bearing No. MH-12/7341. Therefore, he stopped and asked the persons the reason of their gathering. They informed that the driver of the truck was killed by the cleaner. At that time police were also there. P.W. No. 5 told the police that the driver is his nephew. He was taken by police to the spot where the dead body was lying. He identified the dead body that of Sudam. The police had caught hold of the accused. 15. P.W. No. 4 Meena is wife of deceased Sudam. She deposed that her husband Sudam was driver on the truck of Multane Transport and accused was cleaner working along with him on the said truck since 5-6 months from the date of the incident. The accused used to frequently come along with her husband deceased Sudam. The accused used to sleep in the truck and in the early morning Sudam used to ply the truck towards Nagpur. At the time of incident her husband went to Nagpur and while returning from Nagpur the incident took place. P.W. No. 5 informed the incident to them. In the cross-examination, she told that the relation between Sudam and the accused were good. She denied the suggestion that her husband was addicted to liquor. 16. P.W. No. 3-Gulab Kokre is Police Patil of village Shirala. On 09/09/1995 he was going to village Shirala from Khamgaon. At that time driver of P.W. No. 8 viz. Sudhakar gave him message that they caught the accused in murder at Naidevi Phata and he should give this message to Police Station officer of Hiwarkhed. On his way, he met jeep of Hiwarkhed Police Station near Antraj Phata. He gave the message to the police. 17. P.W. No. 10 Hari Wadode is Medical Officer who conducted post- mortem on the body of deceased Sudam. He found multiple injuries on the scalp, fracture of skull near parietal part, lacerated wound over central parietal part of the skull. He gave the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock with head injury. He gave the message to the police. 17. P.W. No. 10 Hari Wadode is Medical Officer who conducted post- mortem on the body of deceased Sudam. He found multiple injuries on the scalp, fracture of skull near parietal part, lacerated wound over central parietal part of the skull. He gave the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock with head injury. He also noted injuries to vital organs like spleen and brain haematoma formation below skull. He mentioned injuries in Column Nos. 17, 19 and 20. He issued post-mortem report (Exh. 17). He also gave opinion about murder weapon i.e. spanner forwarded to him by the Investigating Officer (Article 10). According to him, the injuries described in the post-mortem can be caused by the said weapon. He also noticed one blood stain on the spanner. He opined that burn injuries to the extent of 85% were post-mortem. 18. P.W. No. 12 Jagdeo Charke is the Investigating Officer who on receipt of the information from P.W. No. 8 about burning body having been noticed, rushed to the spot, doused the fire. P.W. 7 Baburao came there and informed him that the truck which was near the dead body was stopped near Preet Dhaba at Khamgaon by-pass road and that the accused was also there. He thereafter rushed to Preet Dhaba, arrested the accused and asked. his name. He told his name as Balu Baburao Kale. He was brought to the Police Station. The report was lodged by P.W. No. 8, which was registered as Crime No. 62 of 1995 under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter he conducted various panchnamas like arrest panchnama Exh. 48, spot panchnama at Exh. 50, seizure of truck Exh. 33 etc. During investigation the accused agreed to produce weapon used in the crime i.e. spanner. Accordingly, his memorandum statement Exh. 28 was recorded. In the memorandum statement he disclosed his name as Popat Bhausaheb Khole, resident of Rakshasbhuvan. Thereafter the accused took them to the truck and he produced the spanner from the tool box of the truck located under the cleaner's seat which was seized as per panchnama Exh. 29. 19. Chemical Analyzer's Reports, which are admitted by the defence, are: Exh. 21 which is in respect of the viscera of the deceased, alcohol was found in the viscera. C.A. Report at Exh. 29. 19. Chemical Analyzer's Reports, which are admitted by the defence, are: Exh. 21 which is in respect of the viscera of the deceased, alcohol was found in the viscera. C.A. Report at Exh. 22 is in respect of the murder weapon (wheel pana), blood scrapped from the bonnet of truck No. MH-12/7341, burnt clothes of the deceased, blood, hair, plastic shoes, ash and earth from the spot. No blood was found on the exhibits wheel pana, heir, ash and earth. The blood group of blood in phial and partly burnt cloth could not be determined as results were inconclusive. The blood detected on the scrapping and partly burnt cloth piece was human blood. In C.A. report (Exh. 23) in respect of ash and earth collected from the spot, Petroleum Hydrocarbon residues were found. 20. The accused examined himself as defence witness and deposed that on 08/09/1995 he and driver Sudam left Nagpur to Pune at about 11:00 p.m. He can drive truck and used to sit on the side of the driver as Cleaner. They reached Khamgaon on the next day at about 01:30 to 02:00 p.m. He used to call deceased Sudam as "Mama". The amount for filling diesel and other expenses was used to be kept with him. They used to take passengers for meeting their dinner and other expenses as their owner used to give meager amount for lunch and dinner. They took lunch at Dilbagh Dhaba at about 02:00 p.m., took their bath and washed clothes. The driver consumed liquor at the time of lunch. The driver paid the bill of liquor and accused paid the bill of food. At about 04:00 p.m. they proceeded for Pune. After traveling 10 kms. from Khamgaon two male and one female gave signal and they stopped the vehicle. First lady entered the truck and two persons aged about 20 to 25 years followed. The lady was sitting near the driver. The said persons were proceeding to Undri and they paid Rs. 20/- towards fare. After traveling 5-6 kms. the lady screamed and told that the driver caught her hand. She asked to stop the vehicle. Those persons asked the driver as to why he had done so. The driver abused the lady. The persons got down and dragged the driver from the truck. They started beating him and they took him towards forest area, the lady accompanied them. the lady screamed and told that the driver caught her hand. She asked to stop the vehicle. Those persons asked the driver as to why he had done so. The driver abused the lady. The persons got down and dragged the driver from the truck. They started beating him and they took him towards forest area, the lady accompanied them. Then accused shouted that one person threatened him that he would be beaten, so he fled away from the back side of the truck. He ran 400 feet away from the truck. He called the driver shouting "Mama, Mama" but could not see him. The truck was facing towards Chikhali. He turned the vehicle and was returning to Khamgaon for lodging report to Police Station as the driver was killed by those persons. He stopped the truck near Preet Dhaba and went to Dhaba to make inquiry about nearest Police Station. In the meanwhile, the matador owner came there and caught him. The accused tried to tell them about the incident, however, they did not listen to him. Immediately police came there and arrested him. He has not given any memorandum statement to the police. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not know whether there was telephone facility at Dilbagh Dhaba or not. He did not inform the superior police officers about the incident. He stated that when he returned after 10 to 15 minutes there was nobody near the truck. 21. In the present case, the appellant has admitted that he was with the deceased till the deceased was assaulted by two unknown Mohammedan persons, who were taken as passengers in the truck. Thus the 'last seen theory' of the prosecution is admitted by the appellant. The death of the deceased is homicidal which is proved by the Medical Officer P.W. No. 11. The truck of the deceased and the appellant was found standing at some distance near the spot, where the dead body of Sudam was found burning on a tyre. The appellant brought the truck to Khamgaon from there and halted at Dilbagh Dhaba. On questioning by P.W. Nos. 2, 6 and 8 and others the appellant gave evasive replies. He did not inform the incident at Dilbagh Dhaba, where he used to regularly visit. The appellant brought the truck to Khamgaon from there and halted at Dilbagh Dhaba. On questioning by P.W. Nos. 2, 6 and 8 and others the appellant gave evasive replies. He did not inform the incident at Dilbagh Dhaba, where he used to regularly visit. He was caught within a very short time span, when the burning dead body was noticed by the prosecution witness i.e. complainant P.W. No. 8. The appellant gave incorrect name to the prosecution witnesses as well as to the police at the time of his arrest. The subsequent conduct of the appellant is additional circumstance which goes to show means rea on the part of the appellant. The appellant agreed to produce murder weapon i.e. spanner which was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the Tool Kit situated below the seat of the cleaner of Truck No. MH-12/7341. 22. As far as motive is concerned, the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased was witnessed by P.W. No. 11-Kisanrao Security Guard on the previous night i.e. on 08/09/1995. The quarrel between the deceased and the appellant was also witnessed by P.W. No. 9-Subhash Bhagat, Cook of Dilbagh Dhaba. Though P.W. Nos. 9 and 11 could not identify the appellant during their evidence in the Court due to lapse of time, fact remains that the appellant himself has admitted that he was along with the deceased as a cleaner and they took meals in the afternoon of 09/09/1995 at Dilbagh Dhaba and he was along with the deceased till the deceased was assaulted. Thus, the prosecution has also established the motive. 23. Though the appellant has tried to take different stand that two Mohammedan persons who were taken as passengers have committed murder of Sudam, the same is not acceptable for more than one reasons. The appellant has failed to give any description of the Mohammedan persons as well as the lady. The appellant if had fled from the spot when deceased Sudam was dragged from the truck towards forest area, then his contention that he came back and could not found the deceased, cannot be accepted, as the dead body of Sudam was burning at a short distance from the truck and the smoke was emanating from the burning tyre. The appellant if had fled from the spot when deceased Sudam was dragged from the truck towards forest area, then his contention that he came back and could not found the deceased, cannot be accepted, as the dead body of Sudam was burning at a short distance from the truck and the smoke was emanating from the burning tyre. Thus, if at all Sudam was murdered by two Mohammedan persons, they had no reason and/or occasion to bring the tyre, place the dead body on the tyre, sprinkle diesel and set the tyre and the dead body on fire. It could have been done by the appellant only and from the evidence on record, it appears to have done only by the appellant. 24. The Chemical Analyzer's reports corroborate the prosecution case as human blood was found on the bonnet of the truck as well as on the clothes of the deceased. Though no blood was found on the wheel spanner, the murder weapon. However, fact remains that when the spanner was attached at the instance of the appellant, on one side, there was blood stains which was mentioned in the recovery panchnama Exh. 30. The said fact is also confirmed in the evidence of P.W. No. 11-Medi-cal Officer to whom the spanner was forwarded for opinion as to whether the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by the said spanner. In his evidence he has categorically stated that there was only one stain which might be of blood on the sealed end of the spanner Article 10. The said fact is also reflected in the opinion Exh. 45 given by the Medical Officer. 25. The prosecution has proved following circumstances: i. On 08/09/1995 there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. ii. On 09/09/1995 the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant at about 02:30 to 3:00 p.m. at Dilbagh Dhaba. iii. There was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased at Dilbagh Dhaba. iv. The appellant and the deceased left Dilbagh Dhaba around 03:00 - 04:00 p.m. v. The admission of the appellant that he was present with the deceased till the deceased received injuries/assaulted. vi. Body of the deceased was found placed on the burning truck tyre. vii. Truck No. MH-12/7341 of the deceased and the appellant was found near the spot of incident. viii. vi. Body of the deceased was found placed on the burning truck tyre. vii. Truck No. MH-12/7341 of the deceased and the appellant was found near the spot of incident. viii. The appellant turned the truck from the spot and took it towards Khamgaon. ix. The appellant halted the truck near Preet Dhaba and was caught there in short time span from detection of the burning body. x. Memorandum Panchnama Exh. 29 at the instance of the appellant and seizure of the murder weapon i.e. spanner; xi. Blood-stains found on the Spanner Article 10; xii. Conduct of the accused in giving false explanation about the whereabouts of the driver; xiii. The appellant giving false name to the prosecution witnesses as well as to the police at the time of his arrest; xiv. Human blood found on the Bonnet of the truck as well as on the clothes of the deceased; xv. Diesel/Petroleum Hydrocarbon Residues found in the ash and cloth pieces of the deceased so also in the earth collected from the spot. All these circumstances unerringly point out towards the guilt and involvement of the appellant in the crime. 26. The explanation and/or defence of the appellant is totally unacceptable and does not stand to scrutiny. On the contrary false explanation given by the appellant can be said to be additional circumstance against him. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by proving complete chain of circumstances on record and only possible conclusion is that it is the appellant who has committed murder of driver Sudam. 27. The ratio relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant in Anjan Kumar Sarma (supra) cannot be of any help to the case of the appellant. There is no dispute about settled legal position that suspicion cannot take place of the legal proof and circumstance of last seen together cannot be by itself form the basis for holding the accused guilty of the offence. As discussed herein above there is overwhelming evidence against the appellant in the present case. In Nizam and others (supra) there was a long time gap between the 'last seen' and recovery of the body and there was possibility of others intervening could not be ruled out. As discussed herein above there is overwhelming evidence against the appellant in the present case. In Nizam and others (supra) there was a long time gap between the 'last seen' and recovery of the body and there was possibility of others intervening could not be ruled out. The facts of the present case are totally different and the chain of circumstances in the present case is fully established by the prosecution which unerringly points towards the appellant. The reliance by the learned Advocate for the appellant in Varun Chaudhary (supra), Rishi Pal (supra) and Munish Mubar (supra) on the point of 'motive' also is of no help to the case of the appellant in the peculiar facts of the present case. The ratio of Juwarsingh and others (supra) is of no help to the case of the appellant as it is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The ratio in the matter of Pralhad Narayan Nafade (supra) also does not support the case of the appellant. In the present case, though the appellant tried to put-forth parallel story, however, there is absolutely no iota of evidence and/or corroboration to the theory put-forth by the appellant and the hollowness in the defence of the appellant is already discussed in the forgoing paragraphs. 28. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order: (i) Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2002 is dismissed. (ii) Bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled. (iii) The appellant shall surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence. (iv) The appellant be given set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period already undergone. (v) The muddemal property be dealt with according to law.